Researchers help define what makes a political conservative [Archive]

pcyrdad

07-31-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote[/b] (Constitutional American @ July 31, 2003 -- 3:43 am)]Or is it that ANY gathering of intellectuals MUST have a liberal bias?
Generally, speaking, no. Case in point: most of the intellectuals posting in this forum are conservative... http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

It is no secret that UC-Berkeley, the APA, and most other colleges and universities (including the Stanford and the University of Maryland) are dominated by liberals. Give them some grant money (especially taxpayer money, a double-whammy to conservatives) to study conservatism, and what result do you think they would come up with? It's like paying for PeTA to vacation at a dude ranch to "research" ranching. Do you think they're suddenly going to change their minds about the subject?

BTW, Hitler was a member of the National SOCIALIST party. Socialism is incompatible with conservatism. Mussolini was a fascist, who described fascism in this way: "Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage...." Conservatives respect the principle of majority rule, even when they are in the minority; liberals use it only when it is convenient for them to do so.

Quote[/b] ]However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

How thorough is this "study" if it can't find any information about liberalism? Conservatism and liberalism go hand in hand, like an old married couple who can't stand each other, but who also realize that one can't live without the other. One is defined as much by its own traits as it is defined as the opposite of the other.

Is it that conservative thought is that much more predominant in America that they had such difficulty finding liberals to study? Dear God, let it be true! That would explain having to go overseas, to two of the worst dictators in history, to try to tie their "thesis" together, which, as I've stated before, is flawed in itself.

They do manage to find liberals overseas in Stalin, Khrushchev, and Castro, but they even mange to try to tie them in with conservative thought. Another hint, guys: communism is socialism on steroids, and we've already discussed socialism being in direct conflict with conservatism.

The bottom line is, this "study" was unscientific, flawed and, yes, BIASED from its conception, and to be published under the name of an esteemed organization (not intended as sarcasm) such as the APA sullies that organization's name. Furthermore, since three different universities were involved, it can be assumed (incorrectly, I hope) that taxpayer money was, indeed, involved. If so, blatant political activity (which this qualifies as, since it in no way resembles a truly scientific study) using tax dollars is a crime in many, if not all, states, and an investigation might be in order.

rsuhls1

08-01-2003, 01:24 AM

pcyrdad Thank you for articulating what I though was implied. Berkley is with out a doubt one of, if not the most liberal school in the nation. Stanford, though not in Berkley, is only about a 30 min drive *(depending on traffic *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) away from Berkley and while many good conservatives have come from there it doesn't mean that it is a "conservative" school.

I read the whole article and found that their conclusions where aimed at dismissing conservativism by one, tying it to Hitler and two, implying that we promote inequality.

I am a conservative and believe in equality of opportunity, and I believe it exist for the most part today. What the liberals (read in socialists) want is equality of results. Meaning they think that everyone should be equal; equal pay, equal hours equal house, equal......well you get the idea.

On that subject I will quote John Adams, "Was there, or will there, ever be a nation whose individuals were all equal, in natural, and acquired qualities, in virtues, talents, and riches? The answer in all mankind must be in the negative."

Again I think the study was flawed from the start because it started in Berkley.

lpara

08-01-2003, 02:16 AM

Welcome rsuhls1! *You'll find most here agree with you and pcyrdad! *Berkley http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif *American Psychological Association *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif *Stanford University's Graduate School of Business http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif *University of Maryland http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif *Most public universities http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/shake.gif

** Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

Sounds like a perfect definition of the Liberals. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/melt.gif

Fear & Agression~~pushing granny down the stairs commercial

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity~~Against anything moral in this country, because they hate moral Christians.

etc., etc. *It's after 2 AM and I'm http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/red_eyes.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sleepy.gif so I can't think of more "stuff" http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Terri

08-01-2003, 08:37 AM

CA, you read an awful lot into rsuhls first remarks that wasn't written in his post.

Could it be that you had a preconceived opinion of conservatives and you posted that article here hoping to see that opinion reinforced?

Constitutional American

08-04-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote[/b] ]CA, you read an awful lot into rsuhls first remarks that wasn't written in his post.

Could it be that you had a preconceived opinion of conservatives and you posted that article here hoping to see that opinion reinforced?
There can be no denying that my personal perspective is going to influence (taint?) my judgement.
Having said that, I think that the phrase:

"BERKLEY...enoug h said"

demonstrates the authors point to a tee,
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white"

As far as my motivation for posting the article, my "hidden agenda" can be summed up in one word, discourse.
I'm curious to hear what people think about this "study"

My "preconceived opinion" as far as Conservative vs. Liberal thought can be boiled down to a fairly basic equation too.
Conservative = resistance to change
Liberal = acceptance of change
Obviously this is an enormous generalization, but it tends to boil down to that at the core most of the time in my opinion.
That's why I can agree with this part of the article:
"While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do"

I actually didn't think the article was all that negative,
the references to "low cognitive complexity" & Hitler aside.
(Heck, the Libs got saddled with Stalin, Khrushchev & Castro).
I think the observations on the psychology of fear & aggression are on the right track. I know that some of my personal views are more "conservative" (as defined by the study) as a result of 9/11.
If the next plane I fly in has 5 guys on it who look even remotely middle-eastern you can bet I will feel uncomfortable.
Is that prejudicial? Racist perhaps?
Absolutely.
Do I care?
Not at all.
That's the way it is.
When someone smashes your rose-colored glasses I think it's perfectly natural to react in a way that the study defines as "conservative", and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm certainly not ashamed of my little bit of prejudice.
It might just save my life...

rsuhls1

08-04-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote[/b] ]Conservative = resistance to change
Liberal = acceptance of change

Tell me what changes are we talking about? I resist changes that will slides us further into the socialistic abyss of the "progressive" agenda.

The "progressive" agenda will leaded right in to the government in control of every step of your life and astronomical tax rates. Yes I resist that don't you CA??? *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Terri

08-04-2003, 06:10 PM

CA, I remember you best as the person who thinks that public radio has no agenda.

Do you also think that Berkeley has no agenda? Has Berkeley ever had any agenda other than far leftwing?

The first thing I want to know when I read a study is who is responsible for it, who conducted it and who paid for it. That helps to evaluate the results.

Do liberals welcome all change as good?

Do conservatives resist all change as bad?

Is judgment really such a bad thing?

Constitutional American

08-04-2003, 09:31 PM

rsuhls1 said,
Quote[/b] ]Tell me what changes are we talking about? I resist changes that will slides us further into the socialistic abyss of the "progressive" agenda.
You're asking me to get specific about a generalization that I made. Generalizations by their very nature don't work that way.

Quote[/b] ]The "progressive" agenda will leaded right in to the government in control of every step of your life and astronomical tax rates. Yes I resist that don't you CA???
I'm not sure how you define "progressive agenda" so you'll have to give me some examples of what that phrase means as defined by you.

I'm all for less taxes, which ONLY less government makes possible. You can NOT cut taxes if you're not going to cut spending, a lesson the "don't TAX & SPEND anyway" Republicans need to learn before their deficit mentality bankrupts future generations (but that's another topic entirely)

I can say that I am vehemently opposed to government control of every step of American life. Quite the opposite, I'd like to see as little government control as possible, Federal, State or Local, and still maintain a civilized society.

Keep in mind "MY" version of limited government encompasses repealing gun control laws and seatbelt laws but also narcotics laws, sodomy laws, reproductive laws and a host of other things that run hand-in-hand with small government but in direct opposition to "conservative" viewpoints I read in this forum.

Terri said,
Quote[/b] ]CA, I remember you best as the person who thinks that public radio has no agenda.
I did go off on an NPR rant so I can believe that would be something you'd remember me for.
Your memory's a little off though Terri. I said NPR has no "bias" not that it has no "agenda".
Everyone has an agenda.
Anyone who tries to tell you they don't only has a "hidden agenda", but an agenda nonetheless...

Quote[/b] ]The first thing I want to know when I read a study is who is responsible for it, who conducted it and who paid for it. That helps to evaluate the results.
Absolutely.
Unfortunately we're not "evaluate the results" at all.
Instead we're evaluating who did the study & dismissing it on those grounds alone.

Quote[/b] ]Do liberals welcome all change as good?

Do conservatives resist all change as bad?

Is judgment really such a bad thing?
Of course not.
I was making a generalization (I thought I made that pretty clear)

Would you say that conservatives DON'T:
"preach a return to an idealized past"
or
place a premium on "personal commitment and unwavering loyalty"
as the study suggests?
These are NOT bad things.
Just like "judgement" is not a bad thing.

When I read "their findings are not judgmental" i took them at their word and considered the findings more of an observation. I thought the study made some valid observations about conservative thought. The incredibly poor examples they chose like Hitler and Mussolini probably do betray the “left-wing bias” that Berkley (and the American Psychological Association, Stanford's Graduate School of Business and University of Maryland) are apparently famous for, but why aren’t we talking about the study instead of just maligning its authors?

I'll admit, my first reply to rsuhls1's comment was flip but I don't feel that anyone has disproved it.
Generalizing (and dismissing) anything that has the word "Berkley" in it as obviously flawed is a perfect example of a conservative "hanging onto the status quo"
Why not just read the study and actually form an opinion of your own instead of regurgitating the same herd mentality that you know will play nice to this crowd?

rsuhls1

08-04-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote[/b] ]Keep in mind "MY" version of limited government encompasses repealing gun control laws and seatbelt laws but also narcotics laws, sodomy laws, reproductive laws and a host of other things that run hand-in-hand with small government but in direct opposition to "conservative" viewpoints I read in this forum.

So you are an Anarchist then? Do you think people like Escobar from Columbia is just going to be a nice guy and stop selling Cocaine in the USA because we ask him Nicely? Do you think people will wear a seatbelt just because it is the safe thing to do? If you are constitutionalist, as your screen name implies, you would be all for states rights, the anti-Sodomy law was a state law in Texas do you think that there should be no state laws at all?

Short question from above, are you an Anarchist?

Terri

08-04-2003, 10:23 PM

Quote[/b] ]Your memory's a little off though Terri. I said NPR has no "bias" not that it has no "agenda".
Everyone has an agenda.
Anyone who tries to tell you they don't only has a "hidden agenda", but an agenda nonetheless...

Just for a minute I forgot how much liberals like to parse words.

Let's just say that NPR has a biased agenda and that bias is far to the left and their agenda is also far to the left. You think both are perfectly normal and that's how I know you are a liberal no matter what you insist on calling yourself.

Liberals are entitled to their opinion and I can respect that. What I don't like is liberals who try to hide their leftwing agenda by calling it something else.

At least Berkeley doesn't do that. They are very openly leftwing radicals who would like to obliterate the constitution. I'm sure that Berkeley turns out a good many studies every year. Show me one, just one, with a conservative bias.

pcyrdad

08-04-2003, 10:58 PM

Thank you, but I guess my initial refutation of the "study" must have been a bit too much for some people to read...

The "study" is flawed by even the loosest, most liberal definitions of scientific reasoning. To publish anything with that many inaccuracies, using sporadic, targeted sampling from the study group rather than the scientifically accepted random sampling, without even a mention of a control group (unless they were using liberals as the control group, which further flaws the study), under the auspices of an "intellectual" study by respected institutions speaks poorly of those institutions, and would not normally be tolerated by them. Factor in their known liberal philosophies, and this becomes nothing more than a political hit piece poorly disguised as academic research.

Any academic study builds, and is built by, the reputation of the research institute. One that is this badly flawed reflects poorly on the institutes in question, much as their liberal philosophies tarnish the study.

Even a casual glance at the story- I mean "study"- provides evidence that this can be nothing more than conservative-bashing, probably in response to local talk-show host Michael Savage's assertions that liberalism is a mental disorder. However, for the mainstream American, the Berkeley byline on this "study" raises a red flag that this might not be an entirely honest endeavor. It is another reminder of the reputation of the institute affecting the credibility of the study. The mainstream American reads this, raises an eyebrow at its conclusions, and asks, "Who could have published this nonsense?" That leads to the byline, "Berkeley," and the natural response is to dismiss the "study" based on the reputation of the sponsoring (or publishing) institution.

Therefore, rsuhls' comment, glib as it was, most likely occurred at the end of the process, not the beginning. Furthermore, the assertions that conservatives cannot be intellectuals, and vice versa, fall exactly in line with the types of propaganda this "study" seems to promote; namely, that conservatives are defined by some sort of mental disorder or deficiency. Those statements, as insulting as they are, need to be either supported with concrete scientific evidence, or they need to be retracted immediately.

Constitutional American

08-05-2003, 10:24 AM

rsuhls1,
The answer to EVERY question you asked me is already in my post. If you're not going to read what I write, what is the point in writing more?
So I'm going to assume you just want me to expound on what I've already said.
Here goes:
Quote[/b] ]Short question from above, are you an Anarchist?
Short answer: No
(you obviously missed my line "and still maintain a civilized society")
Long answer: I'm a Libertarian.

Quote[/b] ]Do you think people like Escobar from Columbia is just going to be a nice guy and stop selling Cocaine in the USA because we ask him Nicely
Do you think that American corporations will stop polluting the environment voluntarily?
So you favor all EPA legislation?
(Oops, wrong thread but the irony is interesting)
Do you think Americans will stop DOING cocaine because you ask them nicely?
Columbia will continue to ship cocaine to America as long as there is a demand. That's the way capitalism works, Supply & Demand. If people want to smoke crack they obviously are going to do it.
How do I know this?
Well golly, they're smoking crack right now regardless of the billions of tax dollars that are wasted every year to prevent it.
So you prefer the current situation?
Waste billions of dollars trying to prevent drugs from getting to America, being sold in America and being used in America.
Send millions of drug users to shiny new jails where we as tax-payers can support them for the years that they are there.
Perhaps pay to "rehabilitate" them or "educate" them while they're there too. Then pay to check up on them when they are parolled. Repeat this process when they get caught again.
Meanwhile NONE of this is having any affect on drugs or drug use in this country.
Don't you think it's time for another approach?
Can't you see that 20 years of "just say NO" have been a waste of time?
In anticipation of your response, I'll tell you what I propose.
Give all the crackheads a pipe, give all the junkies a needle.
Let 'em OD & we can buy them all nice cheap caskets and get them off the dole.
Then I can have my tax break...

Quote[/b] ]Do you think people will wear a seatbelt just because it is the safe thing to do?
Another short answer: YES!!!!
Seatbelts save lives, that's why I wear mine, not because some law tells me I must.
Do you wear your seatbelt?
Do you do so because there is a law that demands it of you or because it's the intelligent, safe thing to do?
Why can't you trust others to make their own decisions?
If you're only doing it because the law says so then....well....hmmm m....

Quote[/b] ]you would be all for states rights, the anti-Sodomy law was a state law in Texas do you think that there should be no state laws at all?
I AM all for States rights, but my desire for less government is not confined to the Federal level alone. Sodomy laws are nothing more than unnessasary government interference in peoples private lives. Just because it's "State government" doesn't make it any less so.

So here's the BIG PICTURE.
No amount of liberal "nanny welfare" or conservative "nanny morals" is going to do anything but further the "nanny state" that we now have.
Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY.
Your money, my money, our tax dollars.
If you want to pay less taxes (as your post against "astronomical tax rates" implies) then we have to cut back on what services the government performs.
I think it's cheaper to let the homos bugger away.
I think it's cheaper to buy caskets then to jail crackheads.

<BEGINING OF RANT>
Terri,
I've been around here long enough, and you've been involved in the same posts as I, that you should know where I'm coming from by now.
So I AM going to be flip with you.
Quote[/b] ]Just for a minute I forgot how much liberals like to parse words.
I'm NOT asking you to define "is" here Terri.
If you don't know there's a difference between bias and agenda then perhaps the phrase "low in cognitive complexity" hits closer to home then you'd like to admit.

Quote[/b] ]What I don't like is liberals who try to hide their leftwing agenda by calling it something else.
You and I have covered this ground too many times already Terri. You know where I'm coming from. I've told you time and time again in too many threads to count now.
I read in a recent "study" that conservatives need to distill everything down to "black & white" but I'm sorry if I can't be that for you.
I am NOT your liberal definition.
Get over it already.
<END OF RANT>

pcyrdad,
I apologize for ignoring you.
I read your initial refutation, and found it mostly valid.
At least I got the impression that you read the study.
Like EVERYONE else here, I choose to ignore 90% of what is written and focus in on the 10% that I can ridicule in order to make myself appear superior. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Just kidding...

So here's a question for you all (that was ignored in my last post):

Would you say that conservatives "preach a return to an idealized past" or place a premium on "personal commitment and unwavering loyalty"
as the study suggests?
These seem like positive traits to me.
So is the study only 97% tainted or are those 3 observations inaccurate?
Might there even be other conservative traits that the "story" mentions that you could admit to, if not actually be proud of?

pcyrdad

08-05-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote[/b] (Constitutional American @ Aug. 05, 2003 -- 7:24 am)]Like EVERYONE else here, I choose to ignore 90% of what is written and focus in on the 10% that I can ridicule in order to make myself appear superior. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Just kidding...
Well, that's why we're all here, isn't it? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laff.gif

Quote[/b] ]Would you say that conservatives "preach a return to an idealized past" or place a premium on "personal commitment and unwavering loyalty"
as the study suggests?

No.

Conservatives "preach" conservative ideals. The ideals of the past were considerably more conservative than they are today, but conservatives tend to be forward-thinking and- dare I say it?- progressive, much to the chagrin of their liberal counterparts. The future to a conservative is definitely idealized. Realistically, the future to everybody is idealized; the difference is that those ideals may vary from person to person.

Also, conservatives tend to favor growth (although they recognize there might be logical, ethical, or natural boundaries for that growth), and growth cannot occur in the past. Therefore, a "return to an idealized past" is neither feasible nor ideal.

Many conservatives "place a premium on 'personal commitment and unwavering loyalty'" in their personal lives. However, in politics, those traits are often lacking in general, and may taint my opinion one way or another.

This assertion, which I agree consists of good traits, is not presented in a good light in the study. They describe commitment and loyalty like they would describe them for German Shepherds, not humans.

The "study" is 100% tainted. Facts and truths can be manipulated to suit the agenda of the people performing the study. They can also be generated or improvised due to a lack of concrete evidence. In this "study", even desirable traits are presented as undesirable, which pretty much unravels the whole thing from the get-go.

I really need to get going now, but I will answer the rest of the question later.

pcyrdad

08-05-2003, 01:42 PM

Sorry. I had to get breakfast, attend a meeting, and head off to school. Hopefully, this stupid Mac won't cause me any problems like it did yesterday...

Quote[/b] ]Might there even be other conservative traits that the "story" mentions that you could admit to, if not actually be proud of?

Quote[/b] ]* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

First, let me say that the traits are common in all people to some extent, so, they either aren't as bad as the "study" would have us believe, or there is at least a little bit of conservatism in all of us. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

* Fear and aggression: These are instincts, not psychological traits. Every animal possesses them; even liberals. Two cases in point are the ongoing Senate filibuster over the judicial nominations and the Texas Democrats leaving the state over redistricting. In both cases, liberals are afraid of losing some of their power, and the methods they're employing to stop those losses are definitely on the aggressive side of politics.

* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity: Dogmatism is legitimately a personality flaw, and, again, it occurs in all people. Ever hear the Dems rail against President Bush about the war on terrorism? That is dogmatism at its finest, often flying entirely counter to the truth. I would also argue that both sides are either tolerant or intolerant of ambiguity, based on political convenience and interpretation. Remember, almost anything can be taken, either in or out of context, to support or refute almost any position.

* Uncertainty avoidance: Anyone who is looking toward the future recognizes a degree of uncertainty, and either tries to minimize it or plan for it. The difference is that conservatives are more likely to try to plan for a worst-case scenario, but, again, that may change based on political convenience and interpretation.

* Need for cognitive closure: I'm not sure I understand why this is in here at all. I think this was probably driven by the showing of the Hussein boys' bodies. Cognitive closure is a genuine need for most people who go through a traumatic situation, and it is the desired end of any project, so I can't claim this as being an entirely conservative trait, either.

* Terror management: I would refer to this as "threat management", and, again, it is more instinctive than psychological. All we have to do is point to 9/11 to watch "terror management" traits coming from both conservatives and liberals.

I guess these traits aren't uniquely conservative, although some may be more or less visible in conservatives than in liberals. However, this draws us back to the first point of discussion, which is that the end result- in other words, the conclusion of this "study"- is based entirely on the opinion of the "researchers".

rsuhls1

08-05-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote[/b] ]Do you think that American corporations will stop polluting the environment voluntarily?

No.

Quote[/b] ]So you favor all EPA legislation?

So here is the liberal problem it is all or nothing. I agree with sensible environmental legislation yes. I don't agree with the Keito treaty or with people like the Earth Liberation front and their ban on cutting any tree. On the other hand I don't agree with clear cutting. Environmental protection is needed but it must be sensible.

Quote[/b] ]Do you think Americans will stop DOING cocaine because you ask them nicely?

Well you got a better shot if supply is down because the dealers are in jail. The answer is a two-pronged attack, strong laws and enforcement for dealers and strong emphasis on cutting demand.

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile NONE of this is having any affect on drugs or drug use in this country.

That is where you are wrong drug use is on the decline. Sorry I don't have the numbers but I'm looking.

Quote[/b] ]Can't you see that 20 years of "just say NO" have been a waste of time?

See the above on drug use on the decline in answer to this question. The short answer is of course no I can't see that it has been a waste of time. Sounds to me that you are trying to engage in a typical liberal rationalization to imply that it is ok to use drugs tell me do you use them by chance?

Quote[/b] ]Give all the crackheads a pipe, give all the junkies a needle.
Let 'em OD & we can buy them all nice cheap caskets and get them off the dole.
Then I can have my tax break..

So you are not only saying that the government should legalize drugs they should pay for them? So since when did the libertarians go far left socialist.

Quote[/b] ]Do you wear your seatbelt?

No. And I know all about the life saving abilities of the belt. I drove truck fore 6 years I wore one then I just am lazy and don't now. I will after Monday, that's when I go to court for a seat belt ticket.

Shall we go on.

Quote[/b] ]Sodomy laws are nothing more than unnessasary government interference in peoples private lives. Just because it's "State government" doesn't make it any less so

So I have this question dropped on me so here we go. So if a 50 year old man wants to have sex with a 15 year old boy, see MABL, is that ok with you because a law against it is unnecessary interference in private life? What about a mom or dad that is having sex with their children would a law against it be unnecessary interference in private life? Do you really understand what you are saying or do you just want to say that the government should leave you alone.

Quote[/b] ]So here's the BIG PICTURE.
No amount of liberal "nanny welfare" or conservative "nanny morals" is going to do anything but further the "nanny state" that we now have.
Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY.
Your money, my money, our tax dollars.
If you want to pay less taxes (as your post against "astronomical tax rates" implies) then we have to cut back on what services the government performs.
I think it's cheaper to let the homos bugger away.
I think it's cheaper to buy caskets then to jail crackheads.

So lets emphasis this "Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY.
Your money, my money, our tax dollars.
If you want to pay less taxes (as your post against "astronomical tax rates" implies) then we have to cut back on what services the government performs." So you are an anarchist.

Does this about cover you entire response? Well it was only like 90% but what do you want one sentence at a time?

Tell me do you agree with or disagree with the "study" you posted? Do you see the Agenda at work or are you blind to it like most liberals are? http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Terri

08-05-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote[/b] ]I've been around here long enough, and you've been involved in the same posts as I, that you should know where I'm coming from by now.
So I AM going to be flip with you.
This is new?
Your politics are obvious. You're a liberal who either won't admit it or can't recognize it. Since Libertarians are the party of potheads and you support legalized drugs that could be a partially accurate description of your political views.

Quote[/b] ]I'm NOT asking you to define "is" here Terri.
If you don't know there's a difference between bias and agenda then perhaps the phrase "low in cognitive complexity" hits closer to home then you'd like to admit.
What a cute little insult. I'm waiting for you to show me that one conservative study that Berkeley ever produced.

Quote[/b] ]You and I have covered this ground too many times already Terri. You know where I'm coming from. I've told you time and time again in too many threads to count now.
I read in a recent "study" that conservatives need to distill everything down to "black & white" but I'm sorry if I can't be that for you.
I am NOT your liberal definition.
Get over it already.

Yes, I do know where you're coming from. Too bad it bothers you so much when I point it out. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

If you're going to troll in here with your insulting politically driven "studies" don't be surprised if people tell you very plainly what they think. We don't have a lot of patience here with liberals in disguise.

Constitutional American

08-05-2003, 11:13 PM

pcyrdad,
Thank you for the well-thought out response and for being the only one to answer my question.

rsuhls1,
Quote[/b] ]That is where you are wrong drug use is on the decline. Sorry I don't have the numbers but I'm looking.
I'm not sure if you found the facts you're "looking" for but I'm pretty sure you and I are not going to agree on this subject. History has shown the miserable failure of Prohibition time and time again. I doubt you're going to find any "facts" to show me that will change my mind so you might as well save yourself the effort.

Quote[/b] ]Sounds to me that you are trying to engage in a typical liberal rationalization to imply that it is ok to use drugs tell me do you use them by chance?
I am known to enjoy alchohol from time to time. I don't touch nicotine or drink coffee.
That covers the big 3.
I have a few prescriptions for a back injury that I sustained (motorcycle crash...ouch!)
So yes, I do use drugs.
I do not however use crack or heroin, which are the "drugs" I believe we were discussing.
So much for your speculation, but a valid question so I thought I'd address it.
For your own knowledge, there are conservatives who advocate the same steps that I've discussed. I don't know if they are crackhead/junkies, but I doubt it.
Not everyone who is willing to explore other options is a wastoid.

Quote[/b] ]So you are not only saying that the government should legalize drugs they should pay for them? So since when did the libertarians go far left socialist.
I didn't mean literally "give" drugs to these losers. They're not having any trouble finding them on there own.
I only meant, it would be far less burden on society if they could just destroy themselves & get it over with.
A dead crackhead doesn't collect welfare, or rob a liquor store, or break into my house.

Quote[/b] ]...if a 50 year old man wants to have sex with a 15 year old boy...a mom or dad that is having sex with their children...
I don't know how you got from sodomy to these other things but, there are already laws against pedofilia & incest.
I feel those laws serve a just purpose in society.
As far as sodomy goes however, the goverment has absolutely no business telling my wife & I which parts of each others bodies we're allowed to touch.

Quote[/b] ]So you are an anarchist.
Didn't we already go over this?
NO, I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST!!!
and again so you can be sure that i mean it,
I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST!!!

How you got "anarchist" out of "cut back on what services the government performs" is beyond me.
I believe in LESS government, or SMALLER government or whatever other adjective you want to use.
Last I knew most conservatives support my position of smaller government. Last I knew it was the liberals who are in favor of "MORE" government, or "BIGGER" government.
Am I losing my mind here, or are you trying to take the "more government is better" position here?

Quote[/b] ]Tell me do you agree with or disagree with the "study" you posted? Do you see the Agenda at work or are you blind to it
As I've pointed out already, there are observations made in the "study" that I feel are valid observations. There are observations in the "study" that I feel are things conservatives should be proud of. I believe I've also pointed out that authors comparisons to Hitler and *Mussolini, and their need to insult the intelligence of conservatives was unwarranted.
You are more than likely correct in asserting that the authors have an agenda, as their choice of comparisons seems to imply.
So short answer, Yes, I see the agenda at work.

Let's clear something up.
I didn't write this "study". My posting it was not an endorsement of it. I just thought it would be something to talk about.

Terri,
Ho-hum, here we go again.
Let me spell it out for you (again):
I am a gun-owning member of he NRA. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. I believe in smaller government, less taxes, welfare reform, limited litigation, personal responsibility, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The list goes on and on.
I've given it to you several times.
I don't have the "Liberal handbook" but I'm pretty sure NONE of those things are in there.
I don't know who's hiding "in disguise", but I hope that's clear enough for you.
What am I saying, of course it won't be.
You ARE that conservative who can only see in black & white absolutes. I'm sure the authors of the study would be proud to see their assertions so vehemently illustrated.
Bravo!!!

jonessa2

08-06-2003, 09:21 AM

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sun1.gif

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/banghead.gif http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/calm.gif

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/baaa.gif *
Well Terrbear, you and Ipara are pretty darn good at this. *It sure gets feisty in here. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif<a href="http://www.federalist.com/pub/03-32_Brief.pdf" target="_blank">

The Federalist * *
04 August 2003 *
No. 03-32 brief pg. 2
Ann Coulter</a>

* * * * * * * RE: *LEFT

"[Leftists] think outside the box. *For example, the Leftist's 'cherished worldview' prohibits racial profiling. But after 9-11, liberals approved the issue with an open mind. *In recognition of the fact that 19 Arab immigrants with the identical hair color, eye color and skin color, half of whom were named Mohammed, had just murdered thousands of our fellow countrymen. *{Leftists] decided to keep prohibiting racial profiling." *

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/it.gif

Floridaguy

08-06-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote[/b] ]I do not however use crack or heroin, which are the "drugs" I believe we were discussing.
Not that the others discussing these things with you need any help, but I noticed in your reply that marijuana was conspicuously absent. I never (figuratively) met a Libertarian or a liberal who didn't try or use a bit of pot on ocassion. What say you?

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

midnight patriots

08-06-2003, 01:14 PM

CA how can you say NPR has no bias? They are most certainly on the extreme far left wing. They once called CNN a conservative network. Come on now, you can't be that blind.

Constitutional American

08-06-2003, 02:26 PM

Floridaguy,
Quote[/b] ]I never (figuratively) met a Libertarian or a liberal who didn't try or use a bit of pot on ocassion. What say you?
Can't get much past ya Floridaguy... http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
My current job requires that I submit to the ultimate indignity of offering my urine for scrutiny so, alas, my prefered form of intoxicant is unavailable to me.
But I freely admit that, in the past, I did inhale.

midnight patriots,
I'm sure if you search the archives you'll find the NPR thread I was talking about. If you'd like to revive it then feel free but it will get us even further off topic here...

One thing I'd like to clarify about this thread that "I" started.
Here's a link to the GOPUSA thread were I first heard about this "study":

Nutty Germans Blame U.S. For 9/11, Are France's Delusions Contagious To The Rest Of Europe? (http://gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST; f=3;t=5149;st=10)

It was posted by dewd7 and the suggestion was made by the moderator that
"Dewd, it sounds as though you want to discuss in more depth than most forum participants seem to do. However, if you start a thread here you might find people joining in."

I was personally interested in that discussion so I started the suggested thread.

On another note:
The moderator who made that suggestion also mentioned, in the same post,
"All American conservatives are not Republicans. All Republicans are not conservative.

Another loosely organized group of conservatives call themselves Libertarians."

Yet somehow, no matter how many times I flat-out state my Libertarian party affiliation, I am branded a "liberal" by the same person I'm quoting above.
Baffling....

Terri

08-06-2003, 03:27 PM

That's very easily clarified.

Libertarians no longer stand for anything except the free use of drugs. They have almost no influence anymore and when they do participate they do so as spoilers.

I mentioned NPR to give our newer members an idea of where you stand in the real political world and that is such a good example.

But I do agree with you on one thing. It's time for us to let you get back to defending this ridiculous study from everyone who knows how ridiculous it is.

midnight patriots

08-06-2003, 03:40 PM

Yes this study is ridiculous as is taxpayers funding it. If one wants to perform a study like this then use your own money. As an American I don't appreciate being put into a box. I have my views which you can find all over this forum. I definately fall on the right side of the spectrum though. The fact that this was a study shows me someone was really bored.

I expect people to get off their butts and earn a living themselves instead of having it handed to them because they are "different". Guess what, we are all different. Just because you were born with a certain ethnicity or social leaning does not make you better or more in need of special treatment. Yet this is what leftists look to do, divide, keep down, dumb down, etc.

I expect the government to watch the borders and be selective about who comes in legally. It used to be you had to have skills and a sponsor............. ..... learn English and the ways of America to become an asset here, do we just get rid of that now? The left wants open borders and let anyone who wants in, in.

Do we just get rid of morals, family values, hard work, etc. values that founded this great country because times they are a changing and people just don't like those values anymore because it requires time and effort instead of a quick fix? Yeah I resist change that is bad for America and destroys values. The left wants it to be a feel good then do it country, with no consequences.

Yeah I want this country defended and I want the right to defend my family myself instead of big brother. The fear and agression part, is totally leftist. They are the ones who use fear and opression and fit throwing, subverting the constitution to get what they want and browbeat those who disagree into submission or be destroyed.

Does this make me an evil conservative? See I don't have to take money secretly and do a study. I learn by observing what goes on around me and the above is what I have seen. i have more but this is what I have time for right now.

rsuhls1

08-06-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote[/b] ]I didn't mean literally "give" drugs to these losers. They're not having any trouble finding them on there own.
I only meant, it would be far less burden on society if they could just destroy themselves & get it over with.

Well, one lets take this one, "if they could just destroy themselves & get it over with." What if it is you kid, or cousin, or nephew, or wife, or sister? Still feel the same? Don't you think that drug treatment, or dug enforcement laws would be better then letting someone die?

Also what about all the theft and violence that goes along with drug use, it doesn't matter to you unless it is your stuff being stolen or you that is involved in the violence right?

Quote[/b] ]A dead crackhead doesn't collect welfare, or rob a liquor store, or break into my house.

Of course you neglect to consider the live crackheads that are paying for the drugs now, or the ones that will start because you and your liberal "drugs should be legal" friends have made it easy.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know how you got from sodomy to these other things but, there are already laws against pedofilia & incest.

Yes there are aren't there, of course there was a law against sodomy to I believe you called it a, and I quote, "Sodomy laws are nothing more than unnecessary government interference in peoples private lives." Now when ask about Incest and pedophile you say "well there are laws against it."

Quote[/b] ]As far as sodomy goes however, the goverment has absolutely no business telling my wife & I which parts of each others bodies we're allowed to touch.

So then we have no right to tell you and your wife what parts of your kid body they can touch? Do you see where this will go? That is where this will go you know, as Senator Santorum said, there will be people calling for an end to laws against incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. etc. etc.

Quote[/b] ]Didn't we already go over this?
NO, I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST!!!
and again so you can be sure that i mean it,
I AM NOT AN ANARCHIST!!!

How you got "anarchist" out of "cut back on what services the government performs" is beyond me.
I believe in LESS government, or SMALLER government or whatever other adjective you want to use.
Last I knew most conservatives support my position of smaller government. Last I knew it was the liberals who are in favor of "MORE" government, or "BIGGER" government.
Am I losing my mind here, or are you trying to take the "more government is better" position here?

Yes smaller government is good but you said, and again I quote, "Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY.
Your money, my money, our tax dollars.
If you want to pay less taxes (as your post against "astronomical tax rates" implies) then we have to cut back on what services the government performs." Sorry but I keyed on "Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY" So we have established you are not an anarchist, you are a liberal however.

Quote[/b] ]You are more than likely correct in asserting that the authors have an agenda, as their choice of comparisons seems to imply.
So short answer, Yes, I see the agenda at work.

Hallelujah a miracle, you see an agenda, a liberal agenda at that. So we have come to the point of you seeing what we all were saying the "study" was a liberal attack to try to stigmatize, and downplay conservatism.

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

Constitutional American

08-06-2003, 06:57 PM

This is getting to be quite a gang so Let's start with,
midnight patriots,
Quote[/b] ]As an American I don't appreciate being put into a box. I have my views which you can find all over this forum.
Amen!
Quote[/b] ]I expect people to get off their butts and earn a living themselves instead of having it handed to them because they are "different".
Amen!
Quote[/b] ]I expect the government to watch the borders and be selective about who comes in legally. It used to be you had to have skills and a sponsor............. ..... learn English and the ways of America to become an asset here
Amen!
Quote[/b] ]Yeah I want this country defended and I want the right to defend my family myself instead of big brother
Amen!
Quote[/b] ]Does this make me an evil conservative?
Nothing "evil" about it.
Like I've said from the very beginning, there's nothing to be ashamed of. I'm surprized more conservatives can't see their way to defend themselves as proudly.
My deepest respect to you.
As you may have noticed, we see eye to eye on a good many things.

Next...
pcyrdad,
I don't have anything specific to address, but I feel like your views have gotten left out of this discussion so I wanted to acknowledge your input. You initial observations about the contradictions in the study were spot on.
Good on 'ya mate!

And then we have,
rsuhls1,
Quote[/b] ]What if it is you kid, or cousin, or nephew, or wife, or sister? Still feel the same?
To be precise, it's my Aunt & my cousin. We managed to separate them & my cousin's doing OK. My aunt on the other hand is a lost cause. She is exactly the kind of free-loading, zero personal-responsibility, do it 'cause it feels good, Liberal that is demonized in this forum on a continuous basis.
And yes, I still feel the same.

Quote[/b] ]Also what about all the theft and violence that goes along with drug use
Theft & violence go along with Prohibition mostly. Ever heard of Al Capone? Do you think the kids spraying each other with machine guns in South Central are any different then the mobsters spaying each other with tommy-guns were back then? It's all turf wars over market share.
The trade in illegal drugs is probably the purest example of a "free market" this country has.
It's all about the Benjamins...

Quote[/b] ]it doesn't matter to you unless it is your stuff being stolen or you that is involved in the violence right?
Wrong!!!
Wrong!!!
Wrong!!!
I don't want the crackhead stealing from ANY of us.
I don't want the junkie mugging ANY of us.
Geez rsuhls1, are you just trying to be contradictory?

Quote[/b] ]Of course you neglect to consider the live crackheads that are paying for the drugs now, or the ones that will start because you and your liberal "drugs should be legal" friends have made it easy.
I got a reality check for you buddy.
Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, that wants to use drugs is doing it. They are readily available to any and all who wish to indulge in them.
If you want to have a serious discussion about this then we're going to need a new thread because, as you might have heard already, legalizing drugs is the ONLY THING we Libertarians are about, so as you can imagine, I've got too much to say about this...

Quote[/b] ]I said,
"the goverment has absolutely no business telling my wife & I which parts of EACH OTHERS bodies we're allowed to touch"
(emphasized for your selective distinction)

you said,
"So then we have no right to tell you and your wife what parts of your kid body they can touch?"
Please refrain from equating heterosexual sex to pedophilia.
It's disturbing, and just a tad bit frightening.

Quote[/b] ]Do you see where this will go? That is where this will go you know
To be quite frank with you rsuhls1, NO!
I don't see it "going there", and the fact that you've drawn the same equation twice now disgusts me.

Quote[/b] ]Sorry but I keyed on "Every law must be enforced. That enforcement takes MONEY" So we have established you are not an anarchist, you are a liberal however.
Is that "Sorry" an apology or just a figure of speech?
I can't tell, so I'm going to assume it's just a figure of speech.
If reducing the size of government, government spending and taxes makes me a Liberal then I guess you've got me pegged.
There are more than a few "Tax & Spendocrats" who might disagree with your definition though.

Quote[/b] ]So we have come to the point of you seeing what we all were saying the "study" was a liberal attack to try to stigmatize, and downplay conservatism.
I'm not exactly sure, but I believe this may be the third time now that I've agreed with you on this point.
It was never my intention to "defend" this study or it's authors seemingly glaring bias. I still feel that some of it's observations about conservatives are on the money, and, though portrayed in a very un-flattering way, nothing to be ashamed of.
Bravo to pcyrdad & midnight patriots for standing tall. And you're right pcyrdad we all possess the qualities observed.

I believe I've explained my reason for starting this thread.
The fact that you implied you only read as far as the very first word, "BERKELEY", before declaring "Enough said" seemed sort of telling to me.
I guess that's just me.
My apologies to you...

Ah, and the best for last,
Terri,
I find it delightfully ironic that in the midst of a discussion about conservatives being stigmatized and stereo-typed you have seen fit to declare:
"Libertarians are the party of potheads"
"Libertarians no longer stand for anything except the free use of drugs."
I guess it all depends on who's getting stigmatized.

So, you've contradicted yourself (with your own words) and would rather result to double-standards than admit your mistake?
It's your shovel, keep right on digging...

"arrive at premature conclusions"
"impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes"
Are you sure you weren't in the Berkley study group?

(Just to be perfectly clear, those are NOT traits ANYONE should be proud of. Shame...)

Terri

08-06-2003, 07:19 PM

Are you denying that Libertarians are the party of potheads? Isn't it true that people have left your party by the thousands in the last 10 years? I'm sorry if the truth hurts but surely you will admit that Libertarians are generally identified with the legalization of drugs.

You are for the legalization of drugs so why do you consider it a stima when it's noted about Libertarians?

How many national offices are held by Libertarians?

Quote[/b] ]One thing I'd like to clarify about this thread that "I" started.
Here's a link to the GOPUSA thread were I first heard about this "study":

Nutty Germans Blame U.S. For 9/11, Are France's Delusions Contagious To The Rest Of Europe?

It was posted by dewd7 and the suggestion was made by the moderator that
"Dewd, it sounds as though you want to discuss in more depth than most forum participants seem to do. However, if you start a thread here you might find people joining in."

And this led you to post an article on a leftwing radical study conducted by Berkeley? Well, that's a really good icebreaker in a roomful of conservatives, CA. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif

Now let's take note of one other thing, I don't care if you like me or not. I don't think much of you either. I think we've established that so it's time for you to justify the positions you've taken in this thread and drop the snide remarks.

midnight patriots

08-06-2003, 08:00 PM

About drugs:

I have never used any but there are people who do. There are people who use it socially and people who become addicted. There are people who don't use because the stigma of it being illegal and if legalized might use it. Anyways......... If someone wants to to stop, asks for help from God and other people then you help them........ look for the opportunity to help them. But if someone doesn't want anything but more money and freeloads, uses people........ you can't help them. You can't force someone to change, only God can do that.

As for the felonies by druggies, there are already law against robbery, murder, etc. If someone does these crimes while under the influence I say tack on extra punishment for adding to that stupidity. Ok but what about legal drugs ie: alcohol, perscription drugs............... ..... people commit crimes on those too all the time and they abuse those all the time.

The fact it's illegal might be a deterrant to some, but those people will just turn to something that is legal. If someone has that drive to get high, they will find something to get high from, legal or not. And the point about the prohibition times is a good one. I'm not for drug legalization either so don't go saying that I am. I am saying legal or not, people that want to get high, will.

As for the stereotypes: I know conservatives who use drugs and/or drink alot, don't care about their families, I call these fiscal conservatives, (anti taxes but socially to the middle). In fact I find most "conservatives" I have met to be this way. For the most part the liberals I have met are also like what I put above only they like taxes/social programs, lead by emotion, and have a "do as they feel" attitude. Most conservatives I have met go to church and are Christian in some form or another or at least claim to be....... while most liberals I have met are not usually Christian or they are athiest.

Honestly I could care less about this stupid study, it was a waste of time and stolen money.

rsuhls1

08-06-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote[/b] ]To be quite frank with you rsuhls1, NO!
I don't see it "going there", and the fact that you've drawn the same equation twice now disgusts me.

Then I'll tell you that that is where I see it going. They got the sodomy law thrown out so now people will go for the others. They are all ready pushing gay marriage in Mass. So wait and see if they don't head that way.

Quote[/b] ]Is that "Sorry" an apology or just a figure of speech?
I can't tell, so I'm going to assume it's just a figure of speech.

Actually it was an apology, have you ever heard the saying "you what happens when you assume?"

Quote[/b] ]If reducing the size of government, government spending and taxes makes me a Liberal then I guess you've got me pegged.

No your whole demeanor on this tread has proven you a liberal.

Quote[/b] ]It was never my intention to "defend" this study or it's authors seemingly glaring bias. I still feel that some of it's observations about conservatives are on the money, and, though portrayed in a very un-flattering way, nothing to be ashamed of.

Well hell I guess that means the whole thing was ok. Tell me other then we are capitalistic what about the study did you find correct?

Quote[/b] ]I believe I've explained my reason for starting this thread.

Well I must have missed it. What was it if I may ask again?

Quote[/b] ]The fact that you implied you only read as far as the very first word, "BERKELEY", before declaring "Enough said" seemed sort of telling to me.

Tell me do you consider anything about Berkley conservative? Do you think that the professors have an agenda to down conservatives? I think you already answered that when you said that you could see the agenda. So if you saw the agenda why did you find it so bad that I saw it too and summed it up with the fact that it came from Berkley? Do we need to debate the entire agenda in order to conclude that it was there?

The whole "study" was flawed from the beginning because as far as I can see the author was going into it with the intention of downing conservatives.

Tell me if the Heritage foundation did a "study" on liberalism and started by equating liberals with Stalin and Mao would you say "well some of the study was good?"

So tell me, I'll ask again what part of the study did you agree with?

pcyrdad

08-06-2003, 08:36 PM

Unfortunately, CA, we've come to the point where we ideologically part ways...

Quote[/b] ]I can say that I am vehemently opposed to government control of every step of American life. Quite the opposite, I'd like to see as little government control as possible, Federal, State or Local, and still maintain a civilized society.

Keep in mind "MY" version of limited government encompasses repealing gun control laws and seatbelt laws but also narcotics laws, sodomy laws, reproductive laws and a host of other things that run hand-in-hand with small government but in direct opposition to "conservative" viewpoints I read in this forum.

"If men were angels, they would have no need of government." We don't need another "study" to prove that men, in fact, are not angels. Therefore, they have need of some government. I agree that government should be limited, but I don't believe it should be lawless. This is where conservatives differ from Libertarians, and the line is not always as cleanly defined as we'd both like it to be...

Quote[/b] ]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Conservatives and Libertarians both agree (for the most part) on "common defence", and that "promote the general Welfare" does not automatically equate to "PROVIDE the general welfare". The areas of disagreement deal with justice and domestic tranquility. "Justice" to a conservative includes those laws that are necessary for society as a whole to thrive. Libertarians believe (from what I understand) that justice lies at the individual level, and society as a whole can just stay the heck out of it.

We have already covered the problem with that perspective: namely that men are not angels. If we were all self-controlled, Libertarian ideology might not only work, it might be the best available option. However, people are not always self-controlled, especially when they are leading lifestyles that are destructive to anyone, themselves included. Therefore, we need to enact and enforce laws that regulate, or in extreme cases prohibit, those lifestyles. Through those laws we find justice and, ideally, domestic tranquility.

Now, I do believe we have some pretty silly laws on the books that need to be thrown out. I also believe there are some laws that need to be enacted (or at the very least enforced). I believe no government can legislate morals within a person, but I also believe that it is the duty of government to enact into legislation the morals of the community it governs.

In our republic, those laws are decided by a majority vote of representatives chosen by the people, which means that, yes, a minority of the people will be expected to respect the laws of the community as a whole, or face the consequences of not doing so (also decided by a majority vote of those representatives). A wise and moral people will find itself with few such laws; a reckless and immoral people will require many laws.

So it all comes back to self-control. Personally, I believe "self-control" is a misnomer, but, not knowing anyone else's theological beliefs, we'll skip that sermon for now. The only alternative to self-control is external control. Those who fail to exercise self-control require external control. We cannot have it both ways. So, we must make the choice. Most of us would choose self-control, which gives the greatest freedom. And I know that freedom is important to Libertarians. The question is, are you willing to exercise that self-control to gain the freedom from external control?

Constitutional American

08-06-2003, 09:57 PM

midnight patriots,
Thank you again for your rational discourse.
I enjoyed reading your perspective.

pcyrdad,
Quote[/b] ]I agree that government should be limited, but I don't believe it should be lawless. This is where conservatives differ from Libertarians, and the line is not always as cleanly defined as we'd both like it to be...
True enough.
I don't believe in NO Federal government at all. Defense is first & foremost. I think the FAA is pretty handy. The FDA seems like they have my best interests at heart most of the time. There's a bunch more.
I've yet to meet anyone who follows their party's platform to the letter. The Democrats & Republicans certainly don't even attempt to.

Quote[/b] ]The question is, are you willing to exercise that self-control to gain the freedom from external control?
With every fiber of my being.

The thing is, for me, whether it's the Democrats thinking they're so intellectually superior to the unwashed masses that Uncle Samantha must protect them with a welfare state, or the Republicans who think they are so morally superior to the unwashed masses that Father Sam must rule over them like the sinners they are, it all boils down to the same thing.
Somebody has to be inferior so someone else can feel superior.

Well I don't need a Nanny to protect me & I don't need a Father to keep me in line.
I can handle that just fine all by myself.
You know what else?
I'm NOT superior, and I can manage these things.
If I can believe that of myself, then I must be able to trust that in my fellow Americans.

(Oh yeah, and I don't know if you know this, but, the Libertarians have all the good weed!!! http://offline999.home.comc ast.net/smoking.gif )

rsuhls1,
Quote[/b] ]So tell me, I'll ask again what part of the study did you agree with?

"Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare"

"resistance to change"
CLARIFIED WITH:
"While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do."

"The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America"

"preached a return to an idealized past"

"liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position."

"The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental. "

""In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure...might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty,"
(Yes, I did edit out the insult)

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability,"

"Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise."

"The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism."

"He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
(Now that's a great quote!)

Quote[/b] ]Tell me if the Heritage foundation did a "study" on liberalism and started by equating liberals with Stalin and Mao would you say "well some of the study was good?"
Well seeing as how the study we're already talking about mentions Stalin, and you don't hear me whining about it, perhaps you could draw your own conclusions?
Seriously though, all glibness aside (which is a stretch for me)
Stalin & Mao were leftists. If the Liberals have a problem with that, well, they need to re-evaluate where they stand.
I know I did, years ago.
That's why I'm not one of 'em...

Terri,
Quote[/b] ]I don't care if you like me or not. I don't think much of you either. I think we've established that
Well Terri, that may be what's been "established" in your black & white world but I hold absolutely no ill-will for you whatsoever.
I do wish you'd stop attacking me with the "Liberal" label, which is a fairly strong insult 'round these parts, but personally, I don't even know you, so how can I have any real "feelings" for you at all?

Terri

08-06-2003, 10:50 PM

Sorry CA. When I see a liberal who denies being one it's just too much fun to point it out. I can't resist.

After all, it's not every day we meet someone who will try to convince us that NPR has no bias or who will post a rabidly radical leftwing article like you posted and then be offended because someone tells you Berkeley is biased. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rotflo.gif

But in the end it doesn't inspire much respect.

pcyrdad

08-06-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote[/b] (Constitutional American @ Aug. 06, 2003 -- 6:57 pm)]If I can believe that of myself, then I must be able to trust that in my fellow Americans.
After suffering through high crime rates, a porous border, several asinine Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions, eight years of Clinton, and "reality" television, I'm not sure I can say the same... http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laff.gif

rsuhls1

08-07-2003, 01:26 AM

Quote[/b] ]The thing is, for me, whether it's the Democrats thinking they're so intellectually superior to the unwashed masses that Uncle Samantha must protect them with a welfare state, or the Republicans who think they are so morally superior to the unwashed masses that Father Sam must rule over them like the sinners they are, it all boils down to the same thing.
Somebody has to be inferior so someone else can feel superior.

Surprise we agree on something but;

Quote[/b] ]Well I don't need a Nanny to protect me & I don't need a Father to keep me in line.
I can handle that just fine all by myself.
You know what else?
I'm NOT superior, and I can manage these things.
If I can believe that of myself, then I must be able to trust that in my fellow Americans

Don’t know where you live but I grew up in California and have been Jumped and robbed. I have also done my share of drugs in my younger years even though it flew in the face of my religion. Then I grew up and got a brain. I can tell you there are a whole lot of people that you and I both are superior to my friend and there is a need for laws to keep people from hurting others and themselves.

Now I will selective take some of the rest of the post because I don’t want to have a mile long post. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]"Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare"

What does the Vietnam war have to do with politics in 2003?? Next Yes you are right we do desire to uphold traditional moral values because the decline in traditional moral values and the belief in right and wrong have lead us to where we are in society now. As for opposing welfare don’t you?

The point is that though these are true the “study” itself is flawed.

Quote[/b] ]“"resistance to change"
CLARIFIED WITH:
"While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do."

So is that why the liberals are pitching such a fit when the conservatives want to change the tax laws?
I also don’t resist sensible change but will resist people who try to change the constitution, Example I have seen many a post on another site wanting to do away with the electoral collage. Why because they lost in 2000 and just can’t let it go, that is the only reason and that is not a good enough reason in my book.

Quote[/b] ]"preached a return to an idealized past"

I’m a conservative, I have never preach for a return to an idealized past and really have not heard anyone who has so where the heck they got that I don’t know.

Quote[/b] ]"liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position."

What rights and liberties do they want? What they want is for me and others to say that homosexuals are normal and this, as far as I and probably 90% of those I know, is not true. I have never considered them a minority because if you start breaking into groups you’ll have a thousand of them. There is the skin heads and the transgender and the KKK and the questioning and the tattoo people and the piecing people and the guys who drive HUGOS. Get real the minorities I recognize are racial. Religion and sexual orientation have nothing to do with it so I don’t even think they need a designation as a “Minority group.” So as for extending them rights do we want to start giving them special treatment?

The rest it starts talking about physiological reasons why conservatism is more popular then liberalism like maybe they can find a cure if the have a telethon or get a government grant or something.

All in all as I and others have said is this was a bias study embarked upon to down conservatism, at least that is my take on it. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Constitutional American

08-07-2003, 08:10 AM

pcyrdad,
Quote[/b] ]After suffering through high crime rates, a porous border, several asinine Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions, eight years of Clinton, and "reality" television, I'm not sure I can say the same
Ugh, Jerry Springer!
It does shake ones faith in their fellow "man" *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

rsuhls1
Quote[/b] ]I have also done my share of drugs in my younger years even though it flew in the face of my religion. Then I grew up and got a brain.
Having grown a brain of my own, I know where you're coming from. I can't say that brain-growth was brought about by anything to do with law enforcement though. The fact that my intoxication was "against the law" never detered me, nor did it lead, as I said, to my growing out of it.

Quote[/b] ]there is a need for laws to keep people from hurting others and themselves
I can agree with half of that.
We do need laws to keep people from hurting others.
It's up to them not to hurt themselves.
It's all about personal responsibility...

Quote[/b] ]All in all as I and others have said is this was a bias study embarked upon to down conservatism, at least that is my take on it.
There can be no doubt that this study portrayed conservatives in a biased manner. As far as the motivation of it's authors, I'm forced to defer to all of you who seem to have read many more Berkley studies than I even knew existed.
In my world, Berkley is a College of Music.
It might actually interest you to know that I, as a musician, view it with an equal level of disdain, as far as the "musicians" I've met who carry it's seal of approval.
Come to think of it, when I meet a musician who claims to have graduated from Berkley, my first reaction is generally,
"Enough said..."

http://offline999.home.comc ast.net/slap.gif

Constitutional American

08-07-2003, 09:36 AM

Terri,
Quote[/b] ]Sorry CA. When I see a liberal who denies being one it's just too much fun to point it out. I can't resist.
I want to thank you for ignoring my wish.
You are correct in that "it doesn't inspire much respect"

You can be thankful that I CAN resist the urge to insult you.

Terri

08-07-2003, 09:52 AM

When someone of a differing political persuasion really wants serious discourse with a group of the opposite persuasion they don't start that discussion by posting an insulting biased political study. They don't make fun of the person who accurately points out that their premise is biased and faulty.

You started this thread to bait conservatives and not because you wanted serious discussion. You've been told before that we don't suffer trolls gladly on this forum.

Troll behavior will be pointed out every time it happens here.

midnight patriots

08-07-2003, 12:27 PM

Thank you CA. I would think that being we are adults that we should be able to discuss things without being rude or insulting. Name calling and baiting really don't further ones cause.

rsuhls the drugs part of my last post was for you. I'd like to discuss that if we may. Thanks.

rsuhls1

08-08-2003, 01:03 AM

Quote[/b] ]rsuhls the drugs part of my last post was for you. I'd like to discuss that if we may. Thanks.

I reread your last post and in truth we could run a complete thread on the subject of drug use alone.

While I was a drug user that was 21 years ago. I can tell you that you are correct at least from my point of view that more people would do drugs if they where legal. Legalization would also lead to ease of acquisition, even for people underage, this in my mind would lead us in the wrong direction.

There are people that say hey it is just POT but studies have shown that those who use just pot as a teen, that would be me, will jump to other drugs, which would also be me. It is something like those who smoke pot are 75% more likely to move on to other drugs then those who don't.

The answer in prevention, teach kids not to start using them then when they grow up there are less drug users. Next is treatment for addicts that want to get off drugs, or are forced to by the courts, third is cutting the supply lines.

It goes in that order though number three will do nothing unless you aggressively push areas one and two.

You are right when you say people if they want to will find a way to get high, examples are plain look at people who sniff paint or glue, but if you make it hard to get like enforcing drug laws then people will use less, at least that is the theory.

rsuhls1

08-08-2003, 01:11 AM

Now a question for CA, I have given this a lot of thought and consideration, so here goes:

If you are not defending the study, which by the way made it onto Bill O'Rielly’s show tonight, then what exactly do you call your statement that some of the points made by the study were correct?

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

Constitutional American

08-08-2003, 06:43 AM

Quote[/b] ]If you are not defending the study, which by the way made it onto Bill O'Rielly’s show tonight, then what exactly do you call your statement that some of the points made by the study were correct?
Pretty much just what you said, "some of the points made by the study were correct"
That list of quotes I posted for you to be precise.
Your responses to which I found to be thoughtful.

There is no such thing as "ALL" conservatives. There's no such thing as "ALL" anybody. So it goes without saying that ANY generalization, and the "study" made many, is not going to apply to everyone.
My over-simplified definition:
Conservative = resistance to change
Liberal = acceptance of change
is most certainly a generalization, but by my personal observations it seems to stand up in most cases.

The very definition (http://www.m-w.com) of "conservativism" is:
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Just to be VERY CLEAR about this, I'm not passing ANY type of judgement on that.
I would expect any conservative to be able to stand proud in these beliefs. I would also expect anyone who doesn't think this definition applies to them would reconsider the labels they affix to themselves.
Only each individual can decide how "conservative" they are, or wish to be. (as demonstrated by the various "neo", "paleo" etc... versions of conservative)
Like I said, there's no such thing as "ALL".

wyatt45earp

08-08-2003, 07:27 AM

We all think liberally but we all do not do liberally. If we believe that another is doing wrong because we would not do it or we would do it differently, that is liberal thinking. To set out to to stop the other individual from what he is doing our to find ways to force him to do it in a way that pleases you is thinking and doing liberally. To critize or offer advice that is not excepted and ten butting out is a conservative trait. Although you are thinking liberal, your liberalism ends with thought.

Constitutional American

08-08-2003, 07:42 AM

rsuhls1 & midnight patriots,
I don't want to intrude on your discussion but I wanted to make an observation.

"The answer in prevention, teach kids not to start using them then when they grow up there are less drug users"
Is a valid point.
The thing to keep in mind is, we all use drugs.
Be it asprin or cough drops or coffee or whatever.
Being honest with kids about which drugs are "bad", and why, would be a much more honest approach. My personal belief is that the reason pot is such a "gateway drug" is because it's so benign compared to other illicit drugs. We tell kids that "drugs" are bad but then they sneak a few beers, smoke a few cigarettes. They see their friends trying pot & when their heads don't explode they draw the conclusion,
"Gee, it's no worse than alchohol, if my parents lied about pot, maybe they lied about cocaine & acid & heroin & ecstasy..."
I plan on making it very clear to my kids the difference between mild intoxicants, like alchohol, pot & caffiene and lethal concoctions like crack & smack & ....

Just my thoughts...

rsuhls1

08-08-2003, 08:14 AM

Quote[/b] ]I plan on making it very clear to my kids the difference between mild intoxicants, like alchohol, pot & caffiene and lethal concoctions like crack & smack & ....

I thought the rest of the post about asprin and cough surph was implied do we really need to waste time and space on that here?

Now to the qoute, I am LDS in laymans term Morman. The "mild intoxicants" you list are frowned upon by my chuch so we do not do them in my house and my kids, the oldist is 18 the other 16 have never and from what they tell me will never use them. So these to are in my book bad drugs.

I went against all that when I got into them all and for the sake of anyone who is reading and may be on that path get off it now it leads to a big fat dead end.

BTW CA your thoughts on conservatism are well thought out. As I said where the majority of us had a problem is when you start posting what people from Berkley say is conservatism, as you saw they downed and demonized it and that was the goal of the study. Ready for this acording to the O'Reilly show that "study" cost 1.5 million tax payer dollars. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Constitutional American

08-08-2003, 08:28 AM

wyatt45earp,
I know things have gotten off-topic with the side discussion about drugs. Actually, owing to the Hitler references in the initial study, I'm surprized Godwin's Law allowed it to take 5 pages.

I am interested in understanding what you said in your post.
Could you clarify, perhaps by example, what you mean?

midnight patriots

08-08-2003, 12:33 PM

Lets' get back on topic. Yes, no one can say ALL for any group of people.............. .......... I am sick of being put into a category though with other people who don't hold the same views I do. I am an American who like freedom, family values, and I am a Christian that reads the bible for myself. I have a sense of humor, I think for myself, and I have chosen to stay home and raise my kids while my husband goes to work. Not all "conservatives" are like I am and I have yet to meet a liberal that is like me either. One must wonder where and who they did this study on?

Someone want to explain why they like to equate Hitler with the right wing?

pcyrdad

08-08-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote[/b] (midnight patriots @ Aug. 08, 2003 -- 9:33 am)]Someone want to explain why they like to equate Hitler with the right wing?
Quote[/b] ]Is it that conservative thought is that much more predominant in America that they had such difficulty finding liberals to study? Dear God, let it be true! That would explain having to go overseas, to two of the worst dictators in history, to try to tie their "thesis" together, which, as I've stated before, is flawed in itself.

They tried (but failed) to make the connection in order to make conservatism seem repulsive to those who might otherwise consider trying it. It's the same as being told what's "really" in hot dogs; based solely on the rumor, even if it turns out to be unfounded, it makes you think twice before you bite into it.

Constitutional American

08-08-2003, 02:25 PM

As if it's not difficult enough to define "conservative" here in America, things are further confused by their sampling of 12 different countries.
I can't imagine "American Conservatives" share much ideology with "German Conservatives".

pcyrdad you got me thinking.
The study mentions, "there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism"
If they polled 12 countries about conservatives, what about the USSR & China?
Those were some pretty large Socialist states in there day.
What about modern day Amsterdam?

Why do all the world's conservatives have to share a common thread, yet the Socialist/Communists don't count against the liberals?

LiveFreeOrDie

08-09-2003, 07:57 AM

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
[QUOTE]

res

08-10-2003, 07:37 PM

What a great exchange, here. A very good read.

On one of the topics, here, I'd like to respond, if just for the abuse.
On the drugs: cocaine is pretty much the same price now, as it was in 1970. This is not the case with your car, your cloths, your home,etc. With billions of yours, and my tax dollars spent, each year, the effort has not been able to force cocaine to keep up with inflation. Now, set aside your ideals, here, for a moment. The war on drugs is,perhaps the largest, and best masked failure in the history of this nation. As a conservative(OK, leaning libertarian) I've been inflamed about the many social programs, (and public education,) that consume so much of OUR tax dollars, with horrible results. When the failures are sited, the answer, has always been, "we need more money" The WOD, is no different. It mirrors our public education system, and about a zillion social programs, that have soaked up our money for years.

No results. The only answer, more money.

And yes, making drugs legal, takes the "private-suppliers" out of the picture. And removing them takes alot of the violence out, also. It is easier for a 15 year old to get crack, than a bottle of Jim Beam.

One idea I have for this absurd matter, is, take the drug enforcers, and put them on the borders. It's alot easier job, and we can reap some benefit from their efforts, and our tax burden.

I think we have a right to expect results from our money. We're getting nothing, from this plan, which has grown, and grown to an absurd burden. Of course, with the Democrats, and the Republicans all in favor of the WOD, it's no mystery as to how the utter failure has been kept so quiet. It's political suicide for any vote-chaser to suggest this, so no one is ever called on it.

Ok, start shootin'

res

08-11-2003, 07:13 AM

..another quickie. As far as conservatives not needing to jump through the intellectual hoops...

While agreed, all sides deserve consideration, if anything is to get done, a decision has to be made. "Further studies needed" reach a point of absurdity. Logic, still should have a place . (I.E. closer looks at middle-eastern males, at airports, while "insensitive" is what will get the job done.) such as this needs no further study.

Our educational system is failing. This fact needs no further study. The remedy does. But the teachers-union's input is NOT needed in these "further studies". It's crystal clear, what their priority is on this matter. And, it has little to do with better education.

But, I'm aware the "jumping through the hoops" on these, and more issues, will continue. It's what happens when the obvious conclusions threaten goverment employees, or worse, if the conlusion appears "insensitive".

pcyrdad

08-11-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote[/b] ]And yes, making drugs legal, takes the "private-suppliers" out of the picture. And removing them takes alot of the violence out, also. It is easier for a 15 year old to get crack, than a bottle of Jim Beam.

1. Are you suggesting that if we legalize drugs, that the government would supply them, rather than "private-suppliers"?

2. Not all of the violence that occurs results from the supply side. A lot of the drug-related violence is committed by the end users.

3. 15-year olds will be able to get crack even more easily if it was legal.

Part of the reason the war on drugs is failing (I will agree with you there...) is due to the attitude that, because it is failing, we must stop fighting it. That attitude is the one that is propagated to our kids, thanks in large part to the media (regardless of how many PSAs the government runs). After all, it's an issue that divides conservatives, and the right-wing pseudo-intellectuals that the media loves support it. Suddenly, there are all sorts of "studies" giving biased medical reports and trumped-up financial surveys indicating that yes, the country would be near-utopic if we were all just STONED!

I used to be on the fence on this issue; I have one question, as yet unanswered, that has set me firmly against it:

Alcohol, caffeine, and nicotene (other drugs Libs like to compare to pot...) can be consumed in quantities sufficient for enjoyment, yet not to the point of being physically incapacitating (one drink, one cup of coffee, one cigarette). Can marijuana, or any other drug, for that matter, be consumed in a quantity that meets both criteria? If not, and I remain convinced this is the case, what would be the benefit of legalizing it?

rsuhls1

08-11-2003, 05:44 PM

res I must say you make a very logical point for legalization of drugs. I also see the point of those who say that if it is legal we can tax it. These arguments are compelling I must say and you are correct about the ability of a 15 year old to get cocaine easier then whiskey.

As long as we continue to teach children that drugs are wrong then maybe legalization would work. The problem I see is that if they where made legal kids would think they were ok and they are not. How would you decide who to sell cocaine to, or heroin to? Would it be to anyone over 18 that or 21 that had the money?

These are the "hoops" you would have to jump through to legalize it. Just for the sake of this argument I will say that I have not found the numbers I was going to look for about drug use going down. Namely because I haven't looked but I know that the numbers I have heard is that drug use among teens is down. That will lead, in the long run, to drug use going down.

res

08-11-2003, 08:24 PM

pcyrdad. What I'm refering to, is, like in this state, other than beer,wine, all the "hard-stuff" is only avaliable through state-operated ABC stores. And, yes that's where I envision the point-of-sale. And, in this state, I will give a rare postiive rating as to how these ABC stores have made underage access difficult.(unlike private beer/wine outlets, that may, or may not follow the rules). While not so with beer or wine, a 15-year old can get street-drugs easier than liquor, here. The age here is 21,BTW

And, no, not all the violence is from the supply side. But a huge amount of crime can be traced, there. Any unregulated business with a 10,000% potential profit margin is going to get a bit "competitive" for the marketplace rights.

And no, I don't have an answer for you on the moderate use of these other drugs, as compared to the legal ones. And I realize, there is a brand new can of worms just waiting on these definitions. My personal opinion, would be zero acceptable use, during driving, etc. Of course that requires self-control, and maturity. While these traits aren't exclusive to moderate use, by definition, it ain't exactly the norm, either.

I don't mean to suggest that I have the plan worked out. All I'm really pointing to is the flushing sound of our money being totally waisted, every year. With strained state/fed budgets, and things that need to be, and can be addressed(borders,et c) I wonder if we have reached the point where the man-power/money can be used much more effeciently, elsewhere.

Holland, is doing some sort of legal drug program. I don't know how it's working, but it may be worth looking at.

I don't have an agenda, here. this is just an observation, and like CA, mentioned way back, the only thing that stopped the bootlegging business, was legalization.

rsulhs1, those questions you ask are the ones I have no
clear answers to. HELP!!

I'm just looking at something that's soaking up able law enforcement , and untold money, that does not work in the least. We need both, desperatly elsewhere. And after reading this thread, I see a pretty sharp and diverse group, with the ability to discuss such things without it becoming a flame-contest.(check some liberal sites, and try to find any thread, with differing views, on a subject, that doesn't turn into a cry-fest) There may just be some answers avaliable here. The politicians won't touch it with a 10 foot pole

I know, after we solve the details of this, and hand it to the politicians(i.e. do their jobs), the next group-challenge will be, just exactly how, can the Mets spend that much on salaries, and still be that bad.(I figured we'd start on an easier one before we tackled that one)

Terri

08-11-2003, 09:02 PM

Holland's Drug Policies: The Lesson for Canada (http://drugandhealthinfo.or g/page03.php?ID=7)

Quote[/b] ]Even though the coffee shops are prohibited from selling to minors, cannabis use among Holland's 14- and 15-year-old high-school students rose sharply between 1984 and 1996. Back in 1984, four percent of these teenagers surveyed said they had tried cannabis once. By 1996, 28 percent of boys and 21 percent of girls admitted to smoking up. Addicts (registered cannabis users being treated) increased by 25 percent in 1997. At the same time only a three-percent rise in the numbers of people looking for help with alcohol-related problems was recorded.

Quote[/b] ]Heroin addiction, virtually unknown in the Netherlands prior to the policy change, has escalated, with the number of addicts estimated by the Netherlands' Institute of Mental Health (called the Trimbos Institute) to be 25,000. An estimated 12,000 addicts are being treated in methadone-maintenance programs.

Quote[/b] ]Holland's tolerant drug laws were aimed at preventing drug users from getting caught up in an illegal drug environment. But the escalation in the use of coke, ecstasy, speed and heroin in that country questions the efficacy of its government's drug policy. As a result, twenty six years after liberalization, drug laws in the Netherlands are still being debated and observers are left wondering if the longed-for benefits of legalization were just wishful thinking.

Terri

08-11-2003, 09:04 PM

Radio Netherlands (http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/nl030711.html)

Quote[/b] ]For many years, the Netherlands has been debating the best way of dealing with serious drug addicts: people who have been hooked on hard drugs for most of their life, and are unlikely ever to be clean. Now the government has decided to continue a programme that gives free heroin to addicts.

Although the programme costs millions of euros a year, supporters believe it's money well spent if it stops addicts from stealing to buy their fix. With the largest and most conservative political party in Holland unconvinced, however, the long-term future of the free heroin initiative is in doubt.

Charie

08-11-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote[/b] ]Heroin addiction, virtually unknown in the Netherlands prior to the policy change, has escalated, with the number of addicts estimated by the Netherlands' Institute of Mental Health (called the Trimbos Institute) to be 25,000.

I saw a documentary a few years after this program was instituted. It sure didn't convince me that this was the way the U.S. should go. Just a short video trip through a "needle park" with young people lying on the ground twitching and shaking was enough for me.

Drugs have nothing to do with sociability which is probably liquor's chief attraction, along with being a relaxant for people who know how to use it.

"How about we meet after work and shove needles in our arms?" Sheesh! We're having fun now!

res

08-12-2003, 07:25 AM

Very good points. I had never researched the Netherlands, and the results of their program. I had heard, drom secondhand imformation, a more rosey side. Need to look deeper into their results, as depending on the source, you can find where the British gun-control laws are a total success, or a total failure.

If this is "the way it is", I still want our money to represent, at least, a tiny value. So what's plan B?

Terri

08-12-2003, 03:56 PM

I don't have a complete plan B. I recognize that there are many problems with the "drug war" but I don't believe legalization is the answer.

How about closing the borders for a first step? Illegal immigration and drugs often go hand in hand.

rsuhls1

08-12-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote[/b] ]How about closing the borders for a first step? Illegal immigration and drugs often go hand in hand.

Even if you don't tie it to immigration closing the borders will make it harder to get the drugs in. It will also curb illegal immigration so there is a double benefit there.

We also must remember, as I said before, education of our children that drugs are bad is a much better answer then legalization of drugs. I really don't have any other answers but these are a start.

res

08-12-2003, 07:23 PM

Terri, that sounds like a great start, and, may impact the flow, some. It would,at least be a temporary help. Just like the liquor days, the suppliers just adjust their tactics.

Probably just as much as the waisted tax money, I'm sick to death of the dealers flaunting "everything that is expensive". These exploits can be the back-breaker for some kids who are too near the fence, in terms of right and wrong. I really want them out of business. But go downtown, and they're not any sort of endangered species.

In the early teens, a kid, that may could turn out fine, can totally screw up their lives, exposed to all this. They look at some $5.50 an hour part-time job, or some scum offers $2-500 a day, for doing the "exchange" for him.....Many, at that age, lack the reasoning, and don't yet see the big picture.

That crap needs to stop.

Sorry, for sort of hijacking the thread, here. The other subjects are equally interesting.

So, lets move on, that's old news, and it's covered in my book.

Constitutional American

08-12-2003, 08:42 PM

Hi res,

I appreciate your observations.
Your last post about the allure of the "bling-bling" is all too true.
As far as "distribution" goes, I think those "ABC" stores are just the ticket. I don't like the "give it away" Holland approach much, but it does have one advantage. For those inclined to approach this issue from a "treatment" mentality, rather than an "incarceration" mentality, you would certainly know who the users were.
Personally, I say treat those you can but the "people who have been hooked on hard drugs for most of their life, and are unlikely ever to be clean" mentioned in the "Radio Netherlands" link, I'd just as soon give 'em full needles until they STOP twitching (if you catch my drift).
The sooner they reach their "highest high" the better off we'll all be.

res

08-12-2003, 09:39 PM

CA, nice to meet you. I did a basic google search under "The Neatherlands drug policy", and it's just what one would expect. It's a rip-roaring success(with stats to prove), or it's a horrible failure(with stats to prove).

Imformation is a wonderful thing. If we could get some from sources without a set agenda, going into a story, it would be even better.

Constitutional American

08-13-2003, 07:10 AM

Quote[/b] ]Imformation is a wonderful thing. If we could get some from sources without a set agenda, going into a story, it would be even better.
Ahhhh...
The dreaded "media bias".
Well that pretty much eliminates ANY American news source.
Accepting that any source is going to have a biased agenda (depending on who you ask), I think we all have to make up our own minds.
I think President Bush put it best,
"I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right."

So, I KNOW this:
Marijuana should NOT be identified in the same class as Crack/Heroin/Meth/LSD/Ecstacy/etc...
The U.S. should immediately legalize it & start making some money off it's sale through taxation.

Terri

08-13-2003, 08:27 AM

I could not disagree more.

I see no reason for the United States government to go into the drug business in order to make potheads legal.

A law like that isn't even close to passing in the US so I think you will just have to keep hitting the street corners and back alleys for awhile.

Hey, who knows, maybe you'll meet a nice cop back there. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Constitutional American

08-13-2003, 02:22 PM

Like I mentioned earlier,
Until Big Brother sees his way clear to stop requiring me to submit to urine collection, I'm out of the ranks of the "potheads"

Constitutional American

08-13-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote[/b] ]I see no reason for the United States government to go into the drug business in order to make potheads legal.
I don't draw a distinction between alchohol & marijuana as far as harm/risk/etc... (that's not entirely true, alchohol is much more destructive) so if the government is willing to be in the drug business as far as alchohol is concerned then what's the problem?
The government already allows Marinol, the active ingredient of which is THC.
The generic equivelant of this FDA-approved drug is known as marijuana.
So unlike alchohol, there are documented theraputic qualities to THC. Of course, we're not talking about therapy, we're talking about intoxication.

jackbenimble

08-13-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote[/b] (Constitutional American @ Aug. 13, 2003 -- 1:35 pm)]So unlike alchohol, there are documented theraputic qualities to THC. Of course, we're not talking about therapy, we're talking about intoxication.
I agree with you about legalizing pot. It is in a different class from the harder drugs and is probably less destructive then either nicotine or alcohol. Legalize it, regulate the sale to adults only, and tax it heavily. Prohibition has not and will not work. All we are accomplishing is to teach our kids disdain for the law.

I really wonder what to do about the harder drugs. Prohibition is not working for them either. We are flushing untold dollars down the toilet and the biggest proponents of our drug laws must be the dealers for whom the law sets the stage for vast wealth.

I'm torn about what to do but I am against more of the same. We are just throwing good money after bad and making the drug dealers rich and destablising the governments of the producing countries. We should either:

1) Legalize, Control, Tax and Treat or

2) Make our laws much harsher with liberal application of the death penalties for dealers.

Drugs are a scourge and I bet almost everyone of us knows of a family that has suffered from them in one way or another. I think if we go very far down the Option 2 path that enough families will see their kids thrown in jail or worse that we will swing towards Option 1.

Regards,
Jack

P.S. Nicotine (the patch) has the legitimate theraputic use of helping people quit being addicted to smoking (both a physical addiction to nicotine and a strong mental habit). Alcohol has many theraputic qualities; just watch any old western. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It works as an antisetic, an antiseptic, a painkiller, an anti-depressant, and more recently is associated with good heart health.

Terri

08-13-2003, 07:15 PM

There isn't much point in arguing pro or con. Most people have a fixed position.

It's been my experience that when you can get an honest answer from pro drug people they are nearly always users who want to be able to get their drug or drugs of choice legally.

So let's change the direction of the discussion a bit and assess the mood of the country.

How do you think your side is doing in the effort to legalize illegal drugs?

There were enough illegal drug users to take over the Libertarian party so how is that party doing?

When do you expect to see illegal drugs become legal?

res

08-13-2003, 08:12 PM

now Terri, that's a bit harsh. The Libertarian party's general stand on pot, isn't for easy personal access. It's with their view of what the goverment's role in our lives should be. I know it's a popular label, but, it's 100% in step with the "big-picture" they built the party on. And as far as how they are doing, they have more elected officials than all the rest of the "3rd parties" combined.

i, personally think pot should be legal, also. If for no other reason than to free up some jail-space for violent criminals. but, I realize this is a "hot-topic", with little chance of mind changing. Just going on record, here.

"My party" isn't dealing with drug laws. They are kicking butt, by occupying congress/senate/ and whitehouse, right now. My "b*tch" about my party is, they need to ease up on the spending spree(not military spending, mind you, but social-programs), and they need to figure out how to get a judge seated, with a simple majority. Other than that, things are pretty damn good.

but, Terri, I think you'll find alot of overlapping ideals with a great many Libertarians. They as a group are the Republican's "best friends". I'm talking about, what Republicans have traditionally stood for. Less goverment, less spending,etc.

Terri

08-13-2003, 08:27 PM

Actually, I don't think it's nearly harsh enough. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]And as far as how they are doing, they have more elected officials than all the rest of the "3rd parties" combined.
How many is that? How many Libertarians hold national and state level offices? I venture that it is very, very few. At best, aren't they spoilers? And when they spoil, isn't it Republican candidates who are hurt?

Libertarians used to stand for small government, now they stand for drugs and wackos. We have our own Libertarian wacko here in Colorado. His name is Rick Stanley.

Terri

08-13-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote[/b] ]"My party" isn't dealing with drug laws. They are kicking butt, by occupying congress/senate/ and whitehouse, right now. My "b*tch" about my party is, they need to ease up on the spending spree(not military spending, mind you, but social-programs), and they need to figure out how to get a judge seated, with a simple majority. Other than that, things are pretty damn good.

Forgot to say that I agree with all that and I could add several things to it but I'd still like to hear from you guys that support legalized drugs how you think that effort is progressing.

Are you nearly there? Will it happen soon? Are you further away than you were at one time? What do you think?

Constitutional American

08-13-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote[/b] ]Libertarians used to stand for small government, now they stand for drugs and wackos.
Isn't it just slightly ironic that this thread started out in defense of a political party that was being stereo-typed, and has come full-circle to stereo-typing a political party?
I'm not trying to start the flame war back up Terri, just an observation. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

As far as how the parties doing...
On a state level, we came very close to winning Ballot Question 1 last year, repealing the state income tax.
885,683 for repeal
1,070,668 against

This is one Libertarian who still stands for small government. Like "res" pointed out, it's all about the role government should be allowed to play in peoples lives. If an action you wish to take does no harm to another, you should be free to do as you please.

As far as legalization goes...
I don't see any indication that politicians are going to tone down there crime & punishment rhetoric anytime soon.
And how could they?
Anyone who would dare speak the truth, about the marijuana laws at least, would be hung out to dry.
So it would appear that for the time being, violent offenders will continue to be furloughed from prisons in order to make more room for non-violent drug users to serve "mandatory minimums".

I think you might say the legalization effort is further away than it once was.
Possession in Massachusetts used to be a civil offense, punishable by a simple fine.
You used to be able to grow your own in Alaska.
All those freedoms have been repealed.
In contrast, the Canadians seem to be headed in the right direction.
Perhaps when their experiment proves to be successful a more moderate tone can be stuck in America.
It's getting to be harder and harder to find politicians who never inhaled.
Sooner or later they've got to stop lying about it.
When people realize that you can smoke a little weed or do a few lines and still grow up to be president, they'll have to lighten up.

For now we'll all just have to keep pretending that our elected leaders never experimented.
http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Terri

08-13-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote[/b] ]Isn't it just slightly ironic that this thread started out in defense of a political party that was being stereo-typed, and has come full-circle to stereo-typing a political party?

Actually this thread began with an attempt to make conservatives look stupid with a biased liberal study. And I haven't read back but I believe you raised the subject of drug use soon after.

So you identify yourself as Libertarian, CA? That's interesting. Most Libertarians I know have a distinct conservative side along with their belief in drugs.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone who would dare speak the truth, about the marijuana laws at least, would be hung out to dry.
Truth? I don't think it's truth.

But, I do agree with you that legalization is further away now than it was in recent years. You won't be surprised that I think that's a good thing.

Let's see what happens in Canada and look at it again in 25-30 years. Canada has a lot of problems. If drug use revitalizes their country then maybe the US will reconsider. Perhaps some of our users will be going north to help in the experiment. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Constitutional American

08-14-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote[/b] ]So you identify yourself as Libertarian, CA? That's interesting. Most Libertarians I know have a distinct conservative side
That's what I've been trying to tell you... *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]Truth? I don't think it's truth.
Well obviously you never inhaled. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
(not that you'd be allowed to admit it if you did)

but the estimated 83.27 million Americans who weren't afraid to admit trying it (Source) (http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/2k1NHSDA/vol2/appendixh_1.htm) know that it's no big deal.
Who knows how many more were afraid to admit it?

The "truth" is, it's no more dangerous than alchohol.
The "truth" is, we waste billions of dollars every year in an attempt to keep people from getting there hands on a plant that flourishes in every climate of the globe.

Like you said already though, no one's minds are going to be changed here...

res

08-14-2003, 05:40 PM

Terri, I know it's a lost cause, and I'm not involved with any organization that's in any way trying to legalize any kind of drug, but I don't know anyone who ever tried pot, that would classify it, even as dangerous as booze. I've never seen it make one reckless, aggressive, or violent. Are there exceptions?, probably, but it will be some fraction of 1%. This is not the case with acholol. And, please don't quote some study, here, or there. There were hundreds of them with predetermined results to go with the grant money. I'm speaking first-hand, as a former user. I spent years in circles, where not using it was the exception. The worst complaint I have heard is, "it just makes me sleepy"

I know it's a lost cause, and it's a well beaten horse, so I'm done with it....other than continuing to pay my part of the WOD, , while there is discussion of pay roll-backs to our military, serving in Iraq.

Terri

08-14-2003, 06:37 PM

No, I'm not going to quote any studies, res. I only posted the stats from the Netherlands because someone said they would like to see them.

My opinions come from life experience. I worked in public schools for 27 years and I can't tell you how many young lives we saw ruined by pot. It makes kids stupid, it does lead to more serious drugs, and it does lead to dropping out. If you didn't notice those kids when you were in school then there is nothing I can say to convince you and I won't try.

I'm really pleased that there isn't much chance of these drugs being legalized anytime soon and I'm happy to just let this thread nod off into a purple haze.

jonessa2

08-14-2003, 06:50 PM

I can't touch the study quickly, but the result is alzheimers accelerated if you smoked pot. Gosh this topic has a life of its own.

rsuhls1

08-15-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote[/b] ], but I don't know anyone who ever tried pot, that would classify it, even as dangerous as booze. I've never seen it make one reckless, aggressive, or violent

res I smoked a whole lot of pot when I was younger when you are High no you are not aggressive or violent, you are however reckless.

There is really no difference between a joint of high grade dope, and a six pack of beer.

I can also tell you that few I know, and I knew a lot, do only one or the other, most do both at once, that is drink alcohol and smoke dope at the same time. Yes that makes them very reckless.

BTW I also committed crimes to get the money to buy the dope, so that is another factor to take into consideration.

Constitutional American

08-15-2003, 04:41 PM

I know plenty of people who would give no thought at all to smoking a joint & going for a drive, so your "reckless" observation definitely has merit.

Quote[/b] ]There is really no difference between a joint of high grade dope, and a six pack of beer.
Actually there are many differences.
Smoke too much dope & you'll more than likely just fall asleep.
Drink too much & you'll get alchohol poisoning & die.
People who are really high are likely to raid the cupboards.
People who are really drunk are likely to start fights.
THC is mostly psychotropic. It alters your perceptions.
Alchohol is mostly a depressant. It destroys you perceptions.
They do both alter your judgement though, if that's what you mean.

Quote[/b] ]BTW I also committed crimes to get the money to buy the dope, so that is another factor to take into consideration.
I don't know how much this has to do with the criminalization of pot.
The "crimes" you commited are crime enough in themselves, regardless of your motivation.
For example, if you stole money to support your habit, then you are a thief, which the law is prepared to deal with.
It's like trying to make a distinction between "crime" and "hate crime". If you murder someone out of racial motivation, you are a murderer. If you rip someone off to support your drug habit, you are a thief.
These are just examples rsuhls1, I'm not trying to harsh on your mellow. http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Quote[/b] ]My opinions come from life experience. I worked in public schools for 27 years and I can't tell you how many young lives we saw ruined by pot. It makes kids stupid, it does lead to more serious drugs, and it does lead to dropping out.
I respect that Terri is ready to bow out of this discussion, so this isn't really directed toward her, but it brings up a couple of points.
The first point is, these are her personal observations, which no one can discount. As was pointed out earlier, any "study" is going to be slanted towards the outcome that the people funding the "study" desired (much like the "what makes a political conservative" study that started this thread)
Recognizing that, only personal observations have any chance of approaching "truth".
I can attest to the "truth" that Terri observed.
We had "potheads" & "wastoids" in my high school for sure.
We also had drunks.

The other point is, any consideration for "legalization" would apply to the same adult population that is allowed to enjoy alchohol. So high school kids, and most college kids, would be excluded.

I don't buy into the "gateway drug" argument.
That's just my "personal observation" though.
I've never met anyone who never smoked a cigarette or drank a beer before smoking a joint. So if pot is a gateway drug, then so are these others.
Perhaps they are.
I wouldn't put any of them in the same class as "hard drugs" though.

res

08-15-2003, 11:00 PM

Ok. back to the "drug" opening point...I want the money-pit fixed.
Figure that one out, and you'll never hear me harp on the legalization thing, *again.

They just continue to take our money, when anyone with half a brain can see it's just thrown on the fire. *How long, do they have this pass? *I'm not fighting the drug issue on any moral "right,or wrong" stance. So they take alot of money, that we earned, and apply it to a program that is a failure, *has been for years, and with no meaningful changes, *continues to fail.
In the mean time, we have a bunch of non-violent inmates taking up space in our prisons. *And because we're "tough on drugs" they don't get the early-outs. *So the offenders who are more than willing to bash in your scull to get your wallet, DO get the early-outs.
This was the origional point, *and I apologize for letting it evolve towards "Drugs: good, *or bad?"
Leaglization was put forth as a possible "plan B". *I'm willing to skip to plan C, *now.
The drug-war is a failure, *and knowing that the majority is opposed to drugs, they can continue an expensive and failed system. *It seems we are satisfied as long as they are fighting drugs, because drugs are bad. *It also seems we expect no measurable return on our (that's OUR) money.
Sounds illogical to me, *that's all. *As a matter of fact, it sounds just like affirmative action. *It doesn't work, *but I feel good supporting it.

rsuhls1

08-16-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote[/b] ] don't buy into the "gateway drug" argument.
That's just my "personal observation" though.
I've never met anyone who never smoked a cigarette or drank a beer before smoking a joint. So if pot is a gateway drug, then so are these others.
Perhaps they are.
I wouldn't put any of them in the same class as "hard drugs" though.

They are that is my personal observation. That would be the observation of my own life. And the observation of several different studies I have seen.

Constitutional American

08-17-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote[/b] ]I'm willing to skip to plan C, now.
Me too.
Everything you said makes perfect sense to me res.
I can't think of another example of an "investement" like the drug war, that has failed so miserably.
If the "war on drugs" were a stock, no one would buy it.
If it were a company, it would have gone Chapter11 years ago.
In the decades we've been fighting this "war" we have failed to win a single victory. There's no shortage of casualties though... http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Quote[/b] ]They are that is my personal observation. That would be the observation of my own life.
Just for clarity, your personal experience was starting with cigarettes & booze, then pot, then hard drugs?
In the interest of fairness, I'll disclose my personal experience.
I tried booze & cigarettes before ever trying pot.
I tooks sips off of a few beers when I was young & decided early on that I didn't care for the taste. When I got a little older (& stupider) my dad did me the favor of mixing me whiskey & cokes until a night drooped over the porcelain taught me that drinking was not "cool" after all.
It only took 1 cigarette to convince me that they were just as disgusting as they smelled (both my parents smoked at home). Some time later I tried the weed. I also experimented with "harder" drugs, but none of them had an appeal for me.
I'm not one of those "addictive" personalities, so it was pretty easy for me not to get sucked into those other things.
Even with pot, the day I knew the job I was going for required urine collection, I quit without a second thought.

Quote[/b] ]And the observation of several different studies I have seen.
Can you get me a link to these studies that show nicotine & alchohol are also "gateway drugs"?
I'd like to add those to my arsenal...

res

08-17-2003, 11:44 AM

CA, I admire your "chemical-make-up". My dance through the vises, proved a bit more challenging. I still smoke, when, but not around non-smokers. Thank god I don't have the allky-gene. I'm convinced there is a chemical factor in how alcohol allows it to take over lives. I've seen it ruin people. I've seen the same with crack. I can't beleive these people have the same difficulty-factor in stopping, or moderating, that I faced. (wait, I never did any crack, but you get the point)

And while I have no argument with Jerri's observations on students, who smoked pot, going nowhere, while less obvious to an outside observer, I've seen a reasonable group of "A" students who indulge, also. The difference?, moderation. Some people can "say when", some, abuse. Since, there are so many potential abusers, out there, laws have been put in place. I can understand the reasoning.

Another case in point. There is a huge amount of stimulants(meth, and others) used by professionals. From execs, to truckers, lawyers,sales, etc. It's used by adults, in the moderation they feel they "need", and what they can afford. But, like booze, there is a significant number of potential abusers, so that it is labeled illegal. And, I have no argument that it is dangerous, and capable of ruining the lives of any who lack the willpower to moderate.

Booze/drugs, are used for precieved shortcomings, by some adults.(need to relax, need to be alert, etc.). But, alot of people, who don't have their lives on track(goals,responsi bilities, careers) use booze/drugs, to get away from that haunting realization(self-guilt), of having to deal with their personal shortcomings. As adults, the problem arises when they retreat into their blurr of choice, rather than fix the reality they are retreating from. I precieve this as the mental-side of adult-addiction. There are physical/chemical differences, too.(I.E. some dislike stimulants, but like downers, some cherish coke, some don't care for it, some can get up in the morning, and finish the beer, on their night-stand, they were drinking, when they passed out the night before).

I know a full time drunk/part time handy-man, who can instantly arouse the disgust for drunks, in most peple. Later I found out, prior to his liquid profession, he put himself through Duke. Now Duke is expensive, and difficult. I don't know what snapped, but, I'm amazed he had the work-ethic, and resolve to get through Duke, and later the weakness to sink this far. Pretty sure it wasn't his plan. I'm also pretty sure none of us can visualize the demons he was defeated by.

I don't even know where I'm going with this(Sunday AM ramblings).

Plan C, anybody?

Terri

08-17-2003, 12:27 PM

Yes, I have Plan C.

This thread seems to fit into Rants and Personal Essays much more closely than Political Buzz so I'm moving it there.

jonessa2

08-17-2003, 01:24 PM

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rotflo.gif

Constitutional American

08-20-2003, 06:34 AM

Quote[/b] ]I'm convinced there is a chemical factor in how alcohol allows it to take over lives.
That sounds about right.
I've got an uncle who's been drinking about a 1/2 case of beer (or more) everyday for as long as I can remember, but still manages to go to work every morning, pay his taxes & be a "productive" member of society.
I've got an aunt however who turns to mush after 2 drinks. She also abuses her prescription medication & just about any other intoxicant she can get her hands on.
I sure am glad that I didn't get either of those genes in the family tree though.

Quote[/b] ]I've seen the same with crack.
I've only witnessed 1 person in my life smoke crack & it was truly frightening, the paranoia.

My personal stance is, I stay away from any substance that's that physically addictive. If I can't stop it "cold turkey" then it's not for me.

Quote[/b] ]I've seen a reasonable group of "A" students who indulge
I was one of those "A" students.
Having said that, I don't think students should use marijuana.
It's affects on short-term memory are fairly well documented so any hope of retaining the things you should be "learning" is going to be difficult.
I never went to school high, even with all the peer-pressure.
I used to ride to school with one of my best friends who would blaze up on the way in. He tormented me every day to join him. I tried to make him realize that, though his first class of the day was study hall, mine was Calculus, followed by Physics, Phychology....

Quote[/b] ]Booze/drugs, are used for precieved shortcomings, by some adults.(need to relax, need to be alert, etc.). *But, alot of people, who don't have their lives on track(goals,responsi bilities, careers) use booze/drugs, to get away from that haunting realization(self-guilt), of having to deal with their personal shortcomings. *As adults, the problem arises when they retreat into their blurr of choice, rather than fix the reality they are retreating from. I precieve this as the mental-side of adult-addiction
Right on res!

It all comes back to personal responsibility for me.
It's not the governments place to protect people from themselves.

Not with Welfare, or Univeral Healthcare, or Seatbelt/Helmet laws, etc...

pRIMrose

08-20-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote[/b] ]It all comes back to personal responsibility for me.
It's not the governments place to protect people from themselves.

You must be talking about forty or fifty years ago. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif We've passed the point of no return when it comes to "personal responsibility" ~ as our bloated social services show. Anyone born in the last thirty or so years "knows" that "nanny government" is there to take care of their stupidity as well as their misfortune. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/doh.gif

As for failed programs ~ the educational system, fondly known as budget busting diploma mills, would give the drug program a run for it's money in the failure department any day. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/huh2.gif The DOE would also be in chapter 11 if they were in the private sector. But since the taxpayer is a bottomless pit of wealth http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif which supports all these wonderful programs, they will live in perpetuity.

Drugs are here to stay ~ legal or illegal. Prohibition didn't work and neither will the war on drugs. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twocents.gif

Constitutional American

08-20-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote[/b] ]Anyone born in the last thirty or so years "knows" that "nanny government" is there to take care of their stupidity as well as their misfortune.
Sad but true RIM.
I can even accept "misfortune", ie. flood, fire, natural disaster sort of stuff, or things like 9/11.

Stupidity on the other hand... http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Quote[/b] ]As for failed programs ~ the educational system, fondly known as budget busting diploma mills, would give the drug program a run for it's money in the failure department any day.
Right on the money again.
We've got a school Superintendent here in Massachusetts who's failed his basic english test 3 or 4 times now, and this is the guy who fires the teachers who can't pass the same test.

Quote[/b] ]Drugs are here to stay ~ legal or illegal. *Prohibition didn't work and neither will the war on drugs.
3 for 3 RIM....

Terri

08-20-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote[/b] ]Drugs are here to stay ~ legal or illegal. Prohibition didn't work and neither will the war on drugs.
You are saying that there should be no prohibition against drugs that are now considered illegal?

All of them?

Some of them?

midnight patriots

08-20-2003, 02:07 PM

You know, I just don't have any answers for how to fix these problems. People that want to get high are going to find a way. If a kid wants to learn something they will find a way. If someone wants to get better they will find a way. No amount of legislation is going to fix it. We have all these laws on the books that fail and yet we keep adding to them. Why?

pRIMrose

08-20-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote[/b] ]You are saying that there should be no prohibition against drugs that are now considered illegal?

No, not really. I guess I'm being a little ambiguous here. What I'm saying is, we are losing the war on drugs. I'm really tired of wasting my tax dollars on taking care of these people ~ from the school yard to the prisons. For every drug bust there are hundreds more that never get caught. We've allowed illegal drugs to become an underground economy. I don't support legalizing "illegal" drugs ~ and I don't support using taxpayer money for clinics to dry out abusers or visits to the emergency rooms for those who OD. Our government is not serious about cleaning up illegal drugs, they are a users chief enabler. Drugs are killing far more people every day than what we are losing in our war with Iraq. Why isn't the government as concerned about this war right here on our own turf? Kinda scary. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

I think midnightpatriots said it best ~ which is what I was trying to say about "legal or illegal" ~ no amount of laws will make one iota of difference. Abusers will always find a way to get their fix. Like the "speakeasies" of the 20's. Prohibition didn't work and neither will the war on drugs. Prohibition was repealed very quickly ~ the war on drugs has been ongoing for over 30 years. Woodstock was the shot across the bow of drug laws and they proved you can give the drug laws the finger. So, I guess I'm rather ambivalent about whether they do or don't legalize drugs. How many rock concerts are loaded with drugged up idiots with law enforcement standing idly by? Unless they are breaking some other law they get a pass. Let's face it, we just don't have enough money or prisons to incarcerate all the druggies.

And we won't even get into what might be revealed when and if there were a serious crackdown on illegal drugs ~ skeletons would come tumbling out of some very interesting closets. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif People who would lose their "shoe boxes" full of tax free money if drugs were legalized.

The only way to control drugs is to legalize them and then you have added yet another government program. And it still won't stop people from getting them illegally. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif IMO, this is one of those "you can't legislate morality" scenarios. It baffles me why anyone would want to legalize drugs anyway ~ everyone knows legal drugs are astronomical.

I'm more worried about the drugs that are legal that I might not be able to afford if I needed them. How screwed up is this? http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

I'm firmly planted on the fence. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/huh2.gif

res

08-20-2003, 07:09 PM

I'm as lost to a fix, or even a measurable reduction as everyone. I can't help but go back to coke, on the street corner, being about the same price it was in 1970. That's when a mid-sized sedan cost $3500-4500. We've spent billions, "invaded" Columbia, have filled our prisons, untill there's nowhere to put the violent offenders, and a simple drug can't be forced into keeping up with inflation.

Of course, I sound a little like Hillery, here. I don't have any real answers, all I can do is b*tch.

Back to an earlier point, it is easier for a 15-year old to get some creack than a bottle of Jack daniels(even the crappy green label). Here, we have state run ABC stores that handle all non beer/wine distribution. It's the only state run dept, that comes to mind, that appears to be doing a good job. If,even the worst drugs were available just like booze, to 21 year old, and up, a 15-year old wouldn't find access any easier than now. Some of the reported 10,000%(not a misprint) profit-margin would be avaliable to the state, as well as tax revenue. With the states doing this, it would eventually have a similar effect to drugs as legalized liquor had to bootleggers. A big criminal element would be brought down.

Terri, and others have raised questions that I can't answer, for sure. But, since I can't see a "solution" I've shifted towards the lesser of evils. And, I'm not sure which this is. I've heard that shifting funds to treatment is cheaper than trying to fight drugs. Of course, where does this end. I see treatment as helping people "dry out". But if this did actually generate funds, our politicians would wind up trying to use about 120% of it, with free needles, and other warm-n-fuzzy, feel-good programs. So, I can see any direction taken, keeping a firm grip on our individual income.

And that's what I've been whinning about, in the first place!

res

08-22-2003, 09:43 PM

.......and I see on Boortz's site, that GWB, has reinstated some "policy" that OK's our guys to shoot down a plane that's a suspected drug-runner. Last time this happened they got a missionary, and his daughter.

I love bush. He's the only leader, in recent history, that understands "reason" is useless with terrorists. You can't "reason" with a rabid pit-bull. You destroy it. Only a liberal misses this.

But, this "shoot 'em down", then, check the baggage......

jonessa2

09-11-2003, 04:23 AM

Quote[/b] (res @ Aug. 22, 2003 -- 8:43 pm)]I love bush. *He's the only leader, in recent history, that understands "reason" is useless with terrorists. *You can't "reason" with a rabid pit-bull. *You destroy it. Only a liberal misses this.

With 9/11 upon us, those words couldn't be more true.
Chop off those tentacles of terror until you *get to the head. *A United front is needed against this enenmy.

And it looks like individual states and their residents are tasked with facing the enemy within. *Whatever the militant group, States and our Congressionl leaders should worry about the Homeland, so the President can take care of military action.

"It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our voices to the God who is the Author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound-sound in unity, affection, and love-one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world."
--Ronald Reagan